A few additional notes are here collected; some overlooked until the bulk of the notes were in print, some suggested by books which have appeared while this volume was in the press. Among these must be named Prof. ’s edition of Isaiah (i.-xxxix.) in the Bible; Mr F. W. Mozley's Psalter of Me Church, containing numerous notes on the Lxx. version of the Psalms; and Prof. J. H. ’s very interesting Prolegomena, Vol. I. of a fresh Grammar of New Testament Greek. These have come into my hands too late for me to make as full use as I could have wished of the valuable hints and side- lights they afford.

On i. 8. ὀπωροθυλάκιον] see Mozley's note on Ps. lxxix. 1.

i. 18. διελεγχθῶμεν] Cf. Acts xix. 38.

i. 24. Cf. also Prov. xxiii. 29, for use of οὐαί.

i. 27. More probably ἡ αἰχμαλωσία is intended to render ‘her (ABBREVtaken as ABBREVSo Alexander, and Prof. Whitehouse in Century Bible. In this case ἡ ἀποστροφὴ αὐτῆς, read by ℵ* 301, is a duplicate.

iii. 6. For ‘ruin’ cf. Heb. of Zeph. i. 3 (Lxx. ἀσθενήσουσιν)

iii. 10. Cf. also Wisdom iv. 12, ῥεμβασμός, with Isai. xxiii. 16 (also Prov. vii. 12).

iii. 12. Prof. Whitehouse considers ἀπαιτοῦντες due to a different punctuation, ABBREV‘women’ being taken as ABBREV‘creditors.’ in ix. 4 ἀπαιτούτων clearly represents ABBREV

iii. 25. Cf. also Amos viii. IO, Zech. xii. 10

vi. 5. κατανένυγμαι] Mozley, on Ps. iv. 5, page 7, has an exhaustive note on the meaning of this verb. I leave untouched what I have written.

vii. 6. βασιλεῦσαι, in causal sense, ‘to make...king,’ is not common in Lxx.: 1 Sam. viii. 22, 1 Kings xii. 1, 2 Kings xi. 12 xxiii. 30, 2 Chron. xxvi. 1, are instances. In 2 Kings xiv. 21 the reading is doubtful.

viii. 19. The use of πρὸς, according to ’s text, is difficult Perhaps it IS akin to that in John i. 1, 2, 1 John i. 2 (where see Bp Westcott's notes).

ix. 1. Schlcusner on this verse explains ταχὺ ποιεῖν, “vili facere, vuce ficta’

ix. 5. For the construction θελήσουσιν εἰ... cf. Luke xii. 49, τί θέλω εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη: Ecclus. xxiii. 14, θελήσειε εἷ μὴ ἐγεννήθης. The latter, especially, seems to support the alternative rendering in the note, Vol. I. p. 97.

x. 14. σείσω seems due to reading ABBREV‘Ι will make to tremble, for ABBREV‘I brought down.

x. 18. Is any light thrown on the use of ὁτοσβεσθήσεται by Ecclus. xliil. 21? καταφάγεται ὅρη καὶ ἴρημον ἐκκαύσεις, καὶ ἀποσβέσει χλόην ὡς πῦρ. In some, at any rate, of its compounds, σβεννύναι is used in senses rather different from the quenching of fire: see Aeschylus, Agata. 887, κλαυμάτων ἐπίσσυτοι πηγαὶ κατεσβήκασιν, οὐδ’ ἔνι σταγών. And again, 958 ἔστιν θάλασσα, τίς δέ νιν κατασβέσεις Also Septcm c. Thcbas 584 μητρός τε πηγὴν τίς κατασβέσει δίκης Lxx. must, on this supposition, while rendering ABBREVby the pass. of ἀποσβεννύναι, have used the verb with a secondary sense to help the meaning.

xi. 9. On ’opmu, see Vol. 1. pp. 26, 109. It represents ABBREV which is elsewhere in Lxx. οἰκουμένη, as in xiii. 11, xiv. 17, xxiv. 4, c. with or without ὅλη: or simply γῆ, as in xiv. 21, xxvi. 9, 18, c. ABBREV is frequently parallel to ABBREVas in xxiv. 4. In classical Creek the phrase is to be found, as it were, in the making, Aristoph. Cloud: 203: ΜΑΘ. γῆν ἀναμετρεῖσθαι ΣΤΡ. πότερα τὴν κληρουχικὴν; MAG. οὔκ. ἀλλὰ τὴν σύμπασαν. ΣΤΡ. ἀστεῖον λέγεις.

xi. 14. verso-Meow occurs also Ps. lv. 6.

xiv. 6. Many critics support the emendation ABBREV‘rule’ ( ‘tramplings,’ Cheyne) for ABBREV‘pursuit.’ See notes in various commentaries, esp. Cheyne, Skinner, Alexander. I doubt whether ’s παίων can be fairly quoted in support of this, their rendering being hardly exact in any case. They do not support the converse change of n to ἢ pro- posed in 2 Kings x. 32 (συνκόπτειν), ABBREV‘to be angry’ for ABBREV cut short.

xiv. 19. νεκρὸς ἐβδελυγμένος. Cf. the addition to Ps. xxxviii. 21 found in R and other authorities. It is possible that met. confused various clauses of ver. 19, 20 in translating.

xxiii. 2, 11. Φοινίκης, Χανάαν. To the note on ver. 11 it should be added that Lxx. use Φοινίκη, Φοίνισσα, Φοῖνιξ, to represent ‘Canaan. ‘Canaanite,’ in Exod. vi. 15, xvi. 35, Job xli. 6 ‘merchants,’ A.V., R.V.); Prov. xxxi. 24 (xxix. 42 in LXX., again ‘merchants’) is Χαναναίοις, and in Deut. iii. 9 Φοίνικες represents ‘Zidonians.

xxiii. 7. παραδοθῆναι. The various uses of this word in the Greek Isaiah almost defy explanation. Here possibly ABBREVwas misread, and some of its letters mistaken for ABBREVπαραδοῦναι, I Chr. xii. 17).

xxx. 11. If τὸ λόγιον is a corruption of τὸν ἅγιον, the converse appears in Ps. cxxxviii. 2, where Mozley points out that τὸ ἅγιόν σου corresponds to ‘thy word’ ( λόγιον often=ABBREV).

xxxii. 6. νοήσει, due to reading ABBREVfor ABBREV‘will work.

xxxiii. 23. The word ABBREV‘prey,’ here taken by LXX. as ‘until,’ has caused confusion elsewhere. In Numb. xxiii. 24 it is rightly rendered, οὐ κοιμηθήσεται ἕως φάγῃ θήραν. But in Gen. xlix. 27, in the morning he shall devour the prey’ appears as τὸ πρωινὸν ἔδεται ἔτι (i.e. Zeph. iii. 8, for ‘ until the day that I rise up to the prey,’ has εἷς ἀναστάσεὼς μου εἷς μαρτύριον (i.e. ABBREVwhich some support. Other cases of confusion are: Hosea ii. 12, ‘α forest’ ABBREVLxx. μαρτύριον Amos i. 11, ‘perpetually’ ABBREVεἷς μαρτύριον, and so Micah vii. 18 Prov. xxix. 14 Vulg. is more generally right (ultra in Amos and Micah), but has in futurum in Zephaniah.

xli. 11. For ἀντίδικος cf. also 1 Pet. v. 8.

xlv. 23. The difficulty of εἰ μήν, which is somewhat hastily dismissed in my note, is that if ‘if,’ the meaning of the clause is the opposite of what is wanted, and of what is given by εἰ μὴ or ἦ μήν. Moreover, μὴν does not seem to be used with εἰ conditional (or interrogative) in classical authors or in Ν.T. The MSS. often show disagreement. The latest view is to consider εἷ μὴν a variety of ἦ μὴν; Blass, in his N.T. Grammar (Mr ’s translation) prints εἴ μήν, and so does Prof. Moulton, whose words (p. 46) are: “The complete establishment of εἴ μὴν by the papyri is an interesting confirmation of the best uncials. Despite Hort (p. 151) we must make the difference between εἶ μήν and ἦ μήν strictly orthographical after all, if the alternative is to suppose any connection with εἰ, if.” I should. upon this view, which almost certainly the right one, have said that εἷ μὴν “is hardly possible’ (am-pt as an equivalent to ἦ μήν: and this, as written in the days of our Mss. or their predecessors, and almost back to the days of the Alexandrian translators, it apparently was.

hii. 5. Α reads ἐμαλακίσθη, but on general principles the reading of the great body of MSS., μεμαλάκισται, must be preferred. We then have a perf. and an aorist in parallel clauses. Above, in ver. 2, there are ἔστιν and εἶχον, then the perf. ἀπέστραπται (Cf. Josh. v. 5, ἀνέστραπται), two presents in ver. 4, and the rest of the surrounding verbs are aorists. The parallel aorist and perfect can also be seen at x. 7 ἐνεθυμήθη...λ.ελόγισται, where possibly each tense has something of its own force, but contrast ἐλογίσθησαν, ν. 28, Χλ. [7; xxi. 9, πέπτωκεν... συνετρίβησαν, cf. ἔπεσεν, Rev. xiv. 8, xviii. 2; xlv. 19, Λελάληκα...εἶπα In xlviii. 16 the text has variants: lvii. 18, ἑὠρακα...ἰασάμην, lix. 14, 15 ἀπιστήαμεν...ἀφέστηκεν, ἦρται...μετέστησαν; lxi. I, ἔχρισεν...ἀπέσταλκεν. Also with temporal or causal connecting particles, ix. 4 xiv. 8, xl. 2; cf. xxiii. 1, xxviii. 7, xlviii. 10.

On this subject see Moulton, N.T. Grammar, Vol. 1. pp. 140146 Mozley, Psalter of the Church, p. 148. I return to the subject below, Grammatical Note, § 6; meantime I venture on the provisional opinion that, where each tense has not its own proper force, some approximation or overlapping takes place: the perfect approaching the aorist in meaning, but that aorist itself having in the Lxx. a somewhat extended force, which renders the approach easier. In x. 7, λελόγισται might be passive and impersonal (l have not however translated it so) which seems to help the proper sense of the perfect.

lvii. 15, 16. It seems to me (and l have endeavoured to punctuate so as to make this sense not impossible) that here, according to the won, the meaning is somewhat like Exod. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 5-7, Lord proclaiming His own attributes, and His words beginning at Ἄγιος ἐν ἁγίοις, or even at ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς.

lxiii. 8, 9. The punctuation might here be made to agree with Heb., beginning a fresh sentence with ἐκ πάσης θλίψεως. Various other passages might be brought by similar means to show less discrepancy: e.g. iii. 17, 18, xxii. 24, 25, and possibly xxxiv. 9, 10, lvi. 7, 8, lx. 5, 6. But xxvi. 18, hi. 6, 7, would need alteration of text: lxiii. 2, 3 probably requires a different division from the Heb.; and i. 11—13, xxvi. 8 xxviii. 27, 28, xxix. 5, 6, xxxii. 13, 14, and lix. 17, 18, seem to defy this treatment.

lxvi. 14 σεβομένοις] For the variant φοβουμένοις (B) cf. Jonah i. 9 where for σέβομαι καὶ) has φοβοῦμαι, supported, according to H. and Ρ., by V 40 91 130 153 311.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE GRAMMAR AND STYLE OF THE LXX.

§ 1. There is not yet, so far as I know, any work in English which deals mainly and directly with the grammar and style of the Greek O.T. The student has still to depend principally upon such books as deal with Hellenistic Greek generally, and with the lexicology and grammar of the N .T. Beside Janaaris' Historical Greek Grammar, whose range is too wide for our immediate purpose, and the N.T. Grammars, whose period does not coincide, we can now turn to a chapter in Prof. ’s Introduction to to O.T. in Greek (Part I l. chap. IV.) ; very valuable so far as it goes, but reduced by the neces- sities of space and proportion to an outline sketch. Selections from tlze Septuagint, by F. C. Conybeare and St G. Stock, contains a short practical survey of the grammar, which will meet some but hardly all the ’s needs. When a grammar of the LXX. does appear it will necessarily deal, for the sake of completeness, with many points which are interesting, especially for the light thrown upon philology, comparative and historical; but are not immediately important to readers Whose desire is to use the Greek version continuously. To these, the actual occurrence of a form or construction, however unclassical, is its own explanation in practice, provided that they can grasp its meaning. As a rule, the most pressing question is whether a doubtful sentence in the Greek is to be interpreted by the guidance of the Hebrew, or by the ascertained rules and practice of Greek, classical or Hellenistic. To decide this, either every such sentence must be noticed, or very care- fully reasoned principles must be collected and laid down. Neither of these things can be done here, nor can even an outline be attempted. Only a few roughly assorted remarks can be put together.

§ 2. Many points, both of accidence and syntax, can but be registered; they will hardly perplex the reader, or, if they should, he must turn for guidance to a translation—the Revised represents standard opinions on many points—unless he can find he wants in Liddell and Scott, Prof. Sophocles' Lexicon of Byzantine Creek, or the N.T. lexicons and grammars. In any case, no trouble need be caused by varieties of form: such as εὐθὴς for εὐθύς, τρανὸς for τρανὴς, σωτήριον, ὅρκος, δυσίν (which serves to mark the death Of the Dual), may, λήμψεται, ἐλάβοσαν, and the like: πλοῦτος neuter, the plurals of οἱρανὸς (as xxxiv. 11, xliv. 23) and γῆ (as 2 Kings xviii. 35 xix. 11, Ps. xlix. 11): τοίνυν fist in the clause (iii. to, v. 13, xxvii. 4 xxxiii. 23), ἐὰν for ἂν after relatives: tense-forms such as φάγομα (xxix. 1), with φάγεσαι (lit. 16), ἐκέκραξα (see on vi. 2), ’w’yxataav (lxvi. 20), and even εἰλημμένος. xi. 5: κύκλῳ used almost as a preposition, vi. 2, ix. 18, εἰ and μὴ as interrogative particles, the latter extended by comparison with ’s Greek, while ποῖος interrogative (l. 1 c.) scarcely goes beyond it: ὃς for ὅστις, as xlii. 23; πῶς ex- clamatory, as xiv. 4, 2 Sam. i. 19, 25, 27, Ezek. xxvi. 17, Lam. i. 1, with which compare Gen. xxviii. 17, Numb. xxiv. 5, Ps. lxxxiii. 1, cxix. 97 where the more classical ὡς appears.

§ 3. The article is generally used very much as in Attic: its omission before βασιλεὺς Ἀσσυρίων, vii. 20, xxxvi. 15, c. might seem anaIOgous to that of βασιλεὺς alone for the Persian king, in Herodotus (v. 1, ἃς.) and Thucydides (1. 18, c.): but it is also omitted in the case e.g. of Ahab and Benhadad in 1 Kings xxi. The tendency seems to be decidedly towards omission; before nominatives used as voca- tives, as i. to, and occasionally with the subject, as i. 21, though this is more generally retained, as ix. 7, xi. 10, cf. xiv. 26; and particularly before participles, as, apparently, in viii. 14, xxvi. 2, 3, xxx. 17 xxxiii. 15 : sometimes these participles have ἄνθρωπος in sing. or plur., as viii. 15, xxv. 3; contrast xxxii. 2. On its use with οὗτος and ὅδε see below, 5. Other loosenesses may be noticed at v. 21, xxix. 20. The article is often repeated in such arrangements as τὰ βδελύγματα αὐτοῦ τὰ ἀργυρᾶ καὶ τὰ χρυσᾶ, ii. 20, cf. iii. 22, ν. 15, 16, xxviii. 1, 4, c.; but on the other hand, phrases like ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ οἶκος, oi ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ ἐγκαθή- μενοι, are rarely found (though see ix. 14, lix. 21); cf. ii. 2, ix. 9, but almost any page will show instances.

§ 4. Nouns need cause little difficulty, apart from forms, spellings, and vocabulary. The neuter plural is constantly used with a plural verb, as well as with the singular, with seeming indifference: the MSS. very often vary. On the other hand, xviii. 2, 3 contains what may be suspected to be a case of the Schema ’ndarz’cum, and, if so, a very strong one: cf. Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek, p. 58. Here we may note the accusative of respect, still in force, as in xi. 15, xxxvi. 22 and the accus. with a passive verb, xxxvii. 2. We may wonder whether the accusative can possibly be used instead of a genitive, x. 32, and in apposition to a genitive (indeclinable) in xxxvii. 38! Both passages can be construed as they stand, but still the doubt occurs. On ὃν τρόπον, used commonly as a conjunction, see on vii. 2. τοῦτον τρόπον is found in Attic, but less commonly than the dative.

Adjectives, being relatively scarce in Heb., are not very common in the LXX.'s somewhat literal rendering. The indeclinable πλήρης most probably to be found in lxiii. 2, where see note.

§ 5. Pronouns decidedly show some blunting of the classical usage. Ἀὐτὸς in oblique cases is excessively frequent as 3rd pers. pronoun, and this, corresponding to mere suffixes in Heb., has often been noticed as a disfigurement of the LXX.'s style. Even in the nominative, the emphatic force is sometimes hard to perceive, e.g. i. 2 xxxiv. 17, xlii. 17; xxxi. 2 seems more pointed, and lxiii. 9, 10 difficult to determine. Ὅδε and its compounds have nearly retired in favour of οὗτος, and the distinction between them is blurred: the phrase τάδε λέγει... is common, and not to be distinguished from οὕτως λέγει (or εἶπεν) in meaning, though Mr H. St J. Thackeray detects by its use a different ’s hand in Jeremiah (journal of Theol. Studies, Jan. 1903). A few instances of ὅδε occur in the Pentateuch, as Numb. xvi. 42, Gen. xliii. 21, where it is used with the article, as οὗτος is, e.g. in xxv. 7, xxvi. 1. The article is also regularly used with ἐκεῖνος· in the phrase ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, ii. 20, ἃς. The demonstrative usually stands last in these cases, contrast ix. 14, 15, xiv. 26. Ὅδε occurs in Isaiah at any rate once, lx. 8; also Jerem. xlviii. Xlviii. 33, xxv. 3c (xxxii. 16). Τοιοῦτος occurs, lviii. 6, lxvi. 8: probably it was not often needed.

§ 6. The verbs show many non-Attic forms. The 3rd pers. pl. in σαν meets us frequently in second aorists, and sometimes in optatives, such as ἐνέγκαισαν, lxvi. 20, already mentioned (cf. Moulton, Ν.Τ. Grammar, p. 33): also an occasional perfect 3rd pl. in καν, as v. 29 B. Εἶπα is common (εἶπαν in Ii. 23); ἐλθάτω in v. 19B, xxvi. 2 NA. The second perfect πέποιθα has imperat. 2nd pl. in ατε, l. 10; cf. Jerem. ix. 4 Ps. cxlvi. 3, and Josh. x. 19 ἑστήκατε ( Cannaris).

On the use of the tenses generally. see Vol. 1., Introduction, “Or. Methods of Rendering.” The aorist seems to be used with full of meaning; there are comparatively few cases in which the ‘gnomic’ use, with those of the ‘immediate past’ and ‘indefinite cannot be made to cover the ground; but sometimes even a liberal use of these explanations hardly satisties Leaving aside the question how best to render into English, such tenses as εἶδον, vi. 5; κατίσχυσεν, xxiv. 20; ἐπένθησεν, xxxiii. 9; ἀπέστησαν, xxxiii. 14: ὑψώθη, lii. 8 ελάλησεν, lix. 3; εὗρεν, lix. 4; ἔγνω, lxiii. 16, present difficulties which are seldom felt in reading the classical Attic authors. Many other aorists are found which, though not in themselves impossible, are difficult in consideration of their context and probable meaning.

In Isaiah, the future causes little difficulty: it may have sometimes been wrongly chosen by the translator, but his intention is seldom doubtful. ln clauses after ὃν τρόπον it is, however, awkward. The idea seems not so much to represent the Heb. imperf., which is not always found in the original, as to assimilate the tense to the corresponding clause.

Most instances of the perfect in lsaiah are natural enough; and the tense is fairly common: but see above on liii. 5 for cases where it occurs in parallel clauses with the aorist. From Prof. Moulton's discussion of the matter (Grammar of N.T. Greek, p. 140 foll.) we see that the best modern authorities are inclined to recognize the possibility of the aoristic use of the perfect in some N.T. writers, accepting them, however, with extreme caution. Prof. Moulton himself limits them, apparently, to a few in Revelation, and three instances of ἔσχηκα, as a special form, in ’s Epistles. This ἔσχηκα, with ἀπέσταλκα—for which see Acts vii. 35, 2 Cor. xii. 17, Exod. iii. 13—15, lsai. certain forms not simply reduplicated, to which Mozley (p. 148) draws attention, are suSpected of aoristic force. Mozley also points out the use of the perf. in titles of Pss. xciiii., xcvi., after ὅτε, and a few others, such as B's εἴρηκε in 2 Kings vi. 7. ὁπότε and ἡνίκα, rather than ὅτε, seem to be used in titles of Psalms with unmistakable aorists: cf. in Isaiah, xvi. 13, xx. 1, xxxviii. 9; but this is not invariable, see lxiii. 19.

As to aoristic perfects in the LXX., we have to remember first, that the translation Is not homogeneous: and Prof. Moulton says (p. 143), “We are entirely at liberty to recognise such perfects in one writer and deny them to another, or to allow them for certain verbs and negative the class as a whole.” Secondly, the question may be whether it is the form of the one tense or the meaning of the other that prevailed; or rather, whether it was not made easier for the perfect to be used where we might have expected an aorist, by the aorist having already extended its limits, so as almost to encroach upon what was the territory of the perfect. (The perfect form, that is, is perhaps regaining for the tense some of the ground which the aorist had previously extended its meaning to cover.) On the coupling of the two, as in liii. 5, we may again quote Prof. Moulton, speaking (p. 143) of “aorist and perfect joined with καί and with identical subject. When the nexus is so close, we might fairly suppose it possible for the tenses to be contaminated by the association, even where a perfect would not have been used aoristically by itself.” Hence no surprise need be felt at the coordinate aor. and perf. in our Isaiah passages, while on the other hand there seems to be no instance of an isolated aorist perfect in the book. There are, it is true, some where the aorist, according to some of its uses in the book, would appear equally possible. Compare e.g. ἤκουσεν, vai. 8, with ἀκηκόασιν below, ver. 19, or ἠρήμωται, i. 7, with ἠρημώθη, xxiv. 10; also xlvii. 13 with lvii. IO. According to my view, as expressed in Vol. I. “ On Methods of Rendering,” the extended use of the aorist in Isaiah is largely to its being the ’ choice as the normal tense to represent the Heb. perfect. The rest of the prophetic, lyric, and poetic passages of the Ο.Τ. are, so far as I can see, not unlike Isaiah in this respect. Plain narrative, introducing the help of a continuous story or context, stands on a different footing.

The rendering of the LXX. into English has of course difficulties of its own, of which these tenses form not the least important. The English translator has to determine what the Greek translator meant, and to judge (see § 1) how far to render in the light of the original, and how far by the ordinary rules of the Greek language. As a hostage has been given to fortune in Vol. 1., no more need be said here. But on the question of the aorist and perfect especiallynit must be remembered that the use of tenses is not a fixed quantity, either as between two languages (though with obviously corresponding forms) or between two stages of one language. The English tenses themselves have undergone much change in usage. Again, the French past tense with avoir (I avoid the terms ‘definite’ and ‘indefinite’) corresponds, evidently, in form to the English tense with ‘have,’ and jaimai on the whole to I loved; but the usage often differs considerably. I choose, almost at random, a quotation from MM. Erckhmann-Chatrian's Waterloo, chap. ix.: ” Cette montre...je Lai regue du prince ène pour une action éclat.’ And one from Racine (Athalie, Act II. Sc. V. l. 511 foll.) “Mais lorsque revenant de mon trouble funeste J'admirais sa douceur, son air noble et modeste, Ƒai senti tout à coup un homicide acier.’

Could an Englishman possibly use the tense I have... in sentences such as either of these? We must therefore be prepared to find even the Greek aorist and perfect occasionally approximating in their meanings, and frequently, at one or another stage of the language, impossible to render into English each by a single tense-form of our own.

The tenses in other moods than the indicative (as the perfects κεκλήσθω, iv. 1, κεκακῶσθαι, liii. 7) need not detain US: on ’u’xpa’yov see note on vi. 3, comparing Moulton, p. 147. The participles are for the most part ordinary: the active perf. participle (in form) occurs roughly speaking about forty times in Isaiah; but of these more than half are instances of πεποιθώς, which is frequently used with tenses of εἰμὶ to form equivalents for finite forms. ἰσχυκότες, viii. 9, is unexpected and may be considered awkward, but cannot be fairly called irregular. Apart from πέποιθα, βεβούλευμαι (iii. 9, xiv. 24., 26, 27, xlvi. 10, 11) and πέπαυται (xxiv. 8, xxvi. to, xxxii. to, xxxiii. 8) are the commonest finite perfects; the required meaning, of course, accounting for this.

τοῦ with infin. mostly stands for Heb. ABBREVwith infin.; very occasionally for D with infin. (privativc sense), which is oftener τοῦ μή. Notice the doubt as to the insertion of μὴ in viii. 16, xxv. 2 (Heb. ABBREVand ABBREVwith nouns), and the variant τὸ with infin., apparently consecutive, in xxi. 3.

(In the phrases Ζῶ ἐγώ, xlix. 18, ᾖ κύριος, the verb is indicative; the Latin is vivo ego, and this agrees with Heb. Contrast 2 Sam. xvi. 16 1 Kings i. 39, &c.)

Note the subj. following a future in x. 14, and the optatives in xi. 9 XXI. Ι.

§ 7. On adverbs there is little to say. Prof. Moulton (p. 105) alludes to the N.T. use of ἀνὰ and κατὰ distributively: Lxx. also use ἀνὰ with numerals, as l Kings xviii. 13, but these, being mostly inde- clinables, give no clue to the case. The double adverbial phrase, ταχὺ κούφως ἔρχονται, ν. 26, is noticeably awkward.

§ 8. Prepositions show more departure from classical standards. The niceties of Attic, as in other matters, are blurred. For instance, ἐπὶ τὸ ὅρος τοῦτο, XXV. 6, is much nearer in meaning to ἐπ’ ἄκρων τῶν ὀρέων, ii. 2, ἐπὶ κούφοις, xxx. 16, or the neighbouring ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ, xxv. 7, than to ἐπὶ τὸ ὅρος Σιών, xxix. 8 (leaving xxxi. 5 aside as ambiguous). Similarly πέποιθα is followed by ἐπὶ with acc. or with dat., and ἐν with dat., almost indifferently; see xxxi. 1, xxxii. 3 xxxiii. 2, &c. Ἐν and εἷς seldom (if ever) show signs of but the former has extended its uses, in the endeavour to do the work of Heb. ABBREVἈπὸ is inclined to encroach upon ὑπὸ, xiii. 19 Β, and to lose its shade of difference from ἐκ on some occasions; but readings sometimes vary, as in viii. 19, cf. xxix. 4. The dat. is seldom found after prepositions other than ἐν and ἐπί, though it might have seemed difficult to do without πρός (cf. Moulton, p. 104 foll.). Prof. Moulton shows that in the N.T. the dative would be the scarcest case after prepositions but for the predominant ἐν: in the Lxx. it might be said generally that certain uses of the dative are abundant, but the number of constructions in which the case is commonly used is smaller than in classical Greek.

§ 9. Conjunctions and particles have somewhat shifted their force and proportion. ὅτι often represents Heb. ABBREVand it is sometimes difficult to know whether it represents ‘that’ or ‘for’: μὲν and δέ, their regular antithesis, have all but disappeared; δέ alone is not very common, and μὲν occurs twice in the book, vi. 2, where δὲ following is doubtful, and xli. 7, where it is absent. On ὅτε, ὁπότε, ἡνίκα, see above, § 6. Relative particles or conjunctional phrases seem increasingly common: ἕως οὗ, ἀφ’ οὗ, with perf. xiv. 8, with aor. xliii. 4, διότι, ὃν τρόπον: cf. perhaps ἐφ’ ἅ(??), xxv. 11.

On εἷ μὴ ἤκουσας; xl. 28, see note there. It certainly seems simplest to take it as interrogative.

The apodosis is sometimes marked by καὶ, as in lviii. 13, 14, where it is uncertain which καὶ has this office; which perhaps comes from the use of Heb. ABBREVthough this is not found in either of these instances. I cannot recall an instance of δέ similarly used in the book, but its com- parative rarity in any sense makes this not surprising.

ἀλλὰ and πρὶν are often followed by ἤ, MSS. varying much. The meaning is hardly affected, unless some slight emphasis is to be under- stood.

Οὐ and μὴ present no very marked peculiarities. Μὴ introducing a hesitating assertion or suggestion may possibly occur xxviii. 17, where see note. Οὐ may be seen used to negative a specitic phrase after ἵνα c. subj. in viii. 20, and cf. x. 15, where however the phrase οὐχ οὕτως is a special weakness of the Lxx. With participles οὐκ occurs, as in xli. 11, 12, lvi. 11, lix. 10; μή, less frequently than might be expected, as in xxix. 12.. In relative clauses, οὐκ, as in lxv. 20; μή, as in lviii. 11.

Interjections, as a matter of usage, differ from Attic. φεῦ and αἰαῖ are replaced generally by οὐαί, see on i. 24. Occasionally ὦ is used, as in Habak. ii. 9, 15, 2 Kings vi. 5. See also such passages as Judg. xi. 35 Jerem. xxii. 18, with their variants.

§ 10. But the general colouring of the style remains the chief peculiarity of the LXX.'s Greek. It is not so much that the constructions are unclassical, as that most classical arrangements are rare or absent. Owing to the short co-ordinate sentences, which follow the original, the devices of Greek syntax have all but disappeared, while most of the methods of expression recur so frequently as to be bald and monotonous in any case, and, if not agreeable to classical usage, to have the appearance and effect of mannerisms. Thus the optative disappears in historic consecution, leaving its work to the subjunctive and indit ative, as in lvii. 8; it also grows rare after εἷ, and, when it is found, the potential clause does not match it; see xlix. 15, and cf. Moulton, p. 196. On the other hand it is used with excessive frequency to express Wishes, Job iii. 3—9, Ps. xx. 10ù4, c.; e.g. in PS. cix. 7—15. There are, again, instances of anacoluthon, beyond, or different from, the Attic practice, and probably mainly due to the almost caseless Hebrew of the original: cf. Vol. I. p. 40. Thus λέγων or λέγοντες is used to connect a ’s statement with the narrative introducing it, though neither agreeing with the grammatical subject nor even referring to it: see, e.g., I Kings i. 51, xviii. 1, in con- trast to (Zen. xxxi. 1. Circumstances make this infrequent in Isaiah, though see vii. 2, with the variants. Other instances of looseness in the matter of cases may be seen at xvi. 6, xxviii. 1, xxxi. 1 pOSSIbly, xxxii. 13, xxxiii. 20, ἃς. Α strange apposition, but of another kind, is that in vii. 17, ἡμέρας...τὸν βασιλέα Ἀσσυρίων.

Special Hebraisms have been noted where they occur; their combination with the features here briefly mentioned, with the addition of a vocabulary and ideas not those of Attic Greek, produce a marked difference in general effect. The scope ofa remark made by Prof. Moulton (p. 76) might be extended: “The Greek translator, endeavouring to be as literal as he could, nevertheless took care to use Greek that was possible, however unidiomatic.” This, I ‘he’ or ‘they’ constantly did, both by choice and of necessity; thinking it the paramount duty to be literal, and not caring for the usages of literary Greek. But if they were not masters of Attic by inheritance or acquirement, neither were they devoid of native gift of language, nor of some conception of a ’s duty, nor of skill to carry it out.